Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9057 total)
370 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 365 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,940 Year: 1,052/6,534 Month: 1,052/682 Week: 105/182 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lignin in red algae supports the Genesis days chronology? What about birds?
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1 of 62 (827326)
01-22-2018 10:07 AM


Is a billion year revision of plant evolution needed?

I will reference a recent publication concerning plant biology.

Billion Year Revision of Plant Evolution Timeline May Stem From Discovery of Lignin in Seaweed

Wikipedia describes the 1813 mannaming Lignin: "He named the substance “lignine”, which is derived from the Latin word lignum,[4] meaning wood."

(see post 901 http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=827290#m827290)

Genesis chapter 1 has a description of wooden plants

וְעֵ֧ץ "and the tree" in verse 12 can actually PROPERLY be translated "and wood".

quote:

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then day 3 ended.

English spore comes from Greek sporos: a sowing, i.e. seed (sown)

From a verb root speiro

speiró: to sow (seed)
Original Word: σπείρω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: speiró
Phonetic Spelling: (spi'-ro)
Short Definition: I sow, spread, scatter
Definition: I sow, spread, scatter.

The Hebrew word for fruit can mean sperm and yes it can actually mean spore.

"with seed" can actually translate " which its spore(S)"

Possible LITERAL translation

AND WOOD MAKING A SPORE (SPORES) WHICH ITS SPORE(S) (is/are) IN IT

Now the article.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127090723.htm

This Science Daily article is discussing the paper by Martone et al. “Discovery of Lignin in Seaweed Reveals Convergent Evolution of Cell-Wall Architecture. Current Biology, 2009; 19 (2): 169.”

The gist of the paper is that:

All land plants evolved from aquatic green algae …Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic machinery for producing lignin may have existed long before algae moved to land. Alternatively, algae and land plants may have evolved the identical compound independently, after they diverged.

I wonder if this can count as "wooden" stalks existing when algae "stems" were clinging to rocks?

Also.

Can the birds on day 5 (before mammals on day 6) realistically be interpreted as actually existing before reptiles?

Look at this complicated issue.

The genetic information comes first.

BEFORE THE ACTUAL ANIMAL.

quote:

NPR Science Friday
August 2, 2013
Amy Balanoff
American Museum of Natural History
………………………………........
Balanoff “…we looked at animals that were very closely related to Archaeopteryx and Archaeopteryx is …this fossil that’s always been historically…held up as…the transitional species between dinosaurs and the living bird but what we found is that when we looked at Archaeopteryx and we looked at dinosaurs that were very closely related to archaeopteryx that they had brains that were at least as large as the Archaeopteryx brains and in some cases even larger so Archaeopteryx certainly had the capacity to fly at some level and so if Archaeopteryx could fly then by inference these other things had the neurological capacity to fly-not necessarily that they were also taking to the skies but that brain was already there.

Plato “So instead of a chicken and egg, you have a brain or a bird?”

Balanoff “Yea, exactly.”

Plato “First, right. It knew it could fly but it didn’t have the wings or the feathers yet or the knowledge? It knew [or] it had the wiring, are you saying?”

Balanoff “ …Those dinosaurs that …were walking or running on the ground, … they had that capacity, that neurological capacity to fly. …

Plato “ That even makes it, you know, closer, the idea that birds and dinosaurs were the same.”

Balanoff “…that’s born out by other studies, you know, that people looking at the evolutionary history of dinosaurs. There are so many characters that they share …that birds and… the non-avian dinosaurs share in common that it’s not really hotly debated anymore.”
….
Plato “So where would you go with your research now? What do you not know or how would you move forward on this?
….
Balanoff “There are a few things. What we were looking at specifically was the volume of the brain. The volume of the brain compared to the body size of the animal. But what we’d like to do next is now to look at the shape of the brain to see how the morphology of these different regions are changing along the evolutionary history of birds.
….
Plato “Can you use then this brain size and the ability perhaps to fly as a guidepost to the evolution of dinosaurs and evolving from birds [from/with] dinosaurs? Is it helpful at all?

Balanoff “It is helpful but what I think is really interesting about this is that so many of these characters that we thought made up a bird …just keep falling down the evolutionary tree of dinosaurs so , you know, we always thought birds were these things that flew, that had big brains, they had a wishbone, they had feathers and all of these things you find so much earlier in the history of …the non-avian dinosaur lineage that it’s becoming harder and harder to say what exactly a bird is.”

Plato “Yea, because if you go back and you look at the brain casts of other dinosaurs and you see they had it also. …. So the birds that could actually fly or had wings and feathers might be a minority of the birds?”

Balanoff “… birds are so diverse that it’s hard to say they’re a minority but yea they’re not as unique as we thought they once were.”
….
Balanoff “There is always something new. …Another thing that we want to do is …add more species too. We’re still not done with-there is a big space between… archaeopteryx and living birds and that needs to be filled in and that’s one of our future areas of research.


Then an issue of mutations and genetic information coming before the actual creature.

quote:

Popular Science
March 2013
Q: Which came first: the chicken or the egg?
….
Chickens, as a species, became chickens through a long, slow process of evolution. At some point, a chicken-like bird produced an offspring that, due to some mutation in its DNA, crossed the threshold from mere chicken likeness into chicken actuality That is to say, a proto-chicken gave birth to a real-life official chicken. And since that real-life official chicken came out of its own egg, we can say that the egg came first.
Another way to look at the question would be to ask which came first in evolutionary history. One again, the egg takes precedence. Many characteristics of the modern avian egg-namely an oblong, asymmetrical shape and a hardened shell-were in place before birds diverged from dinosaurs about 150 million years ago. “A lot of the traits that we see in bird eggs evolved prior to birds in theropod dinosaurs,” says Darla Zelenitsky, of the University of Calgary.
Another key moment in the history of avian eggs occurred at least 150 million years before that, when a subset of four-limbed vertebrates evolved to produce amniotic eggs. The embryos within the eggs were surrounded by three fluid-filled membranes that provide nourishment, protection, and a way to breathe. The earliest amniotic eggs contained large amounts of yoke, says James R Stewart, a reproductive physiologist at East Tennessee State University. “You still see that in birds, crocodilians, and snakes,” he explains. Like other placental mammals, we humans lost our yoke somewhere along the line, but our eggs still come with a vestigial yolk sac.

Listen to Carl Sagan attempt to give a summary of evolutionary chronology.

He narrowed the Universe's history into 365 days.

The Cosmic Year.

(brackets are my words)

quote:

Cosmos
EPISODE 2

“By December 1st, green plants had released copious amounts of oxygen and nitrogen into the atmosphere. The sky is made by life.” ….

[Cambrian Explosion was December 15th.]

[Trilobites and squid like creatures were prominent December 18th. ]

[First fish and first vertabrits on December 19th.]

[Then plants on land December 20th.]

[First winged insects December 22.]

[First amphibians December 22. ]

[First trees and reptiles December 23]

….[dinosaurs Christmas eve]

….

“The first mammals emerged on December 26th. The first birds on the following day. But the dinosaurs still dominated the planet [160 million years after they began to exist]”


Perhaps birds were a little earlier than mammals?

I can find a scientist saying (in a Smithsonian article from 7 years ago I have) that birds probably first existed around 250 million years ago, and the article had a feathered dinosaur fossil that dated 190 mya. I will try to find it.

I wonder if there are some possible translations that can have certain parts of scripture be more in line with history (especially with more recent discoveries)?

Found article (and it is online!)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/...iving-descendants-69657706

quote:

Deciphering how feathers morphed over the ages from spindly fibers to delicate instruments of flight would shed light on the transition of dinosaurs to birds, and how natural selection forged this complex trait. Few scientists know ancient feathers more intimately than IVPP’s Xu Xing. He has discovered 40 dinosaur species—more than any other living scientist—from all over China. His office at IVPP, across the street from the Beijing Zoo, is cluttered with fossils and casts.

Xu envisions feather evolution as an incremental process. Feathers in their most primitive form were single filaments, resembling quills, that jutted from reptilian skin. These simple structures go way back; even pterodactyls had filaments of sorts. Xu suggests that feather evolution may have gotten started in a common ancestor of pterodactyls and dinosaurs—nearly 240 million years ago, or some 95 million years before Archaeopteryx.


So perhaps 240-250 mya there were birdish creatures.

Combine this issue with flying insects (which existed earlier), and then consider that most reptiles were sort of waterish creatures around the start of the 200 million century (that is to say just after 300 mya)

quote:

The earliest known proto-reptiles originated around 312 million years ago during the Carboniferous period, having evolved from advanced reptiliomorph tetrapods that became increasingly adapted to life on dry land. Some early examples include the lizard-like Hylonomus and Casineria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile


Casineria might be an amphibian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casineria

Hylonomus was a reptile, but obviously most "reptiles" 300 million years ago were watery creatures.

quote:

Hylonomus (/haɪˈlɒnəməs/; hylo- "forest" + nomos "dweller")[1] is an extinct genus of reptile that lived 312 million years ago during the Late Carboniferous period.[2] It is the earliest unquestionable reptile (Westlothiana is older, but in fact it may have been an amphibian, and Casineria is rather fragmentary). The only species is the type species Hylonomous lyelli.

Birds might not be so much later than the transition period from water creatures to land creatures.

I wonder if birds before land creatures is so much of an absurd anachronism now?

Creationism (especially young earth creationism) is dead as a doornail, when the evidence is taken to account, as a reasonable way of looking at the earth's history.

Evolution is backed up rather strongly (and even the fossil record is pretty good at showing intermediates - especially when it comes to birds and reptiles and humans and transitional ancestors all the way back to chimp like ancestors)

But, is a day age theory type of interpretation of Genesis 1 really so bad?

Sagan did say "green plants" came before even the atmosphere (though there are other theories for the atmosphere like a "big belch" from rocks and BEFORE algae), so he called algae "green plants".

I wonder if it is a good idea to trash Genesis 1 just because Genesis 2 might contradict it and just because YECs want to talk about Evolution and the Big Bang being "Satanic" while vocally and aggressively making very strong accusations against scientists (then there are the science classroom issues).

Stephen Jay Gould said that Genesis 1 got the rough order of life correct.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2018 12:40 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2018 6:22 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 5 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2018 1:40 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 6 of 62 (827429)
01-24-2018 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by caffeine
01-23-2018 1:40 PM


But when were the first flying dinosaurs?
quote:

So perhaps 240-250 mya there were birdish creatures.

These 'birdish creatures' couldn't fly; and lived on land. And they would not have been birdish.

All that is being discussed here is the idea that feathers, all of the various quills and things discovered on fossil dinosaurs, and the fuzzy stuff that covered some pterosaurs, are all evolved from the same thing. That's something palaeontologists argue about. Some think pterosaur fuzz evolved separately. Some think ornithischian quills evolved separately as well.

But, if Xu Xing is right, all that means is that the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs already possessed some kind of integument that later evolved into pterosaur fuzz and proto-feathers. It didn't have feathers, though, and wasn't a bird.


There was also a mention of these types of things evolving more than once throughout history. (which seems a lot more possible than lignin evolving separately).

We know that Pterosaurs had a lot in common with birds, and appeared suddenly. And before 200 million years ago..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

quote:

Triassic

248-206 million years ago

Pterosaurs appear very suddenly in the fossil record, and their ancestry is very poorly understood. They are close relatives of dinosaurs, but what precisely did they evolve from? Perhaps the most likely candidate so far is a small archosaur from the Lossiemouth Sandstone of Scotland known as Scleromochlus. It has a skull similar to those of pterosaurs and it may have been arboreal. It is also possible that Scleromochlus was a glider, a mode of life that could have given rise to pterosaur flight. However, the proportions of its limbs (long legs and short arms) are exactly opposite the condition in pterosaurs. Until more evidence comes to light, the origin of pterosaurs will remain a major unknown.

The earliest known true pterosaur is Eudimorphodon. It was first identified in ~220 million year old rocks from Northern Italy. Since then, it has also been identified in Austria, Luxembourg, Greenland, and possibly Texas. There are three other known genera of Triassic pterosaur (Austriadactylus, Peteinosaurus, and Preondactylus), all from Central Europe. All were fairly small and probably subsisted on fish and insects.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/...rosaurs/Fossil%20Record.html


The idea is that all birds came from big bulky dinosaurs and it might be true.

But perhaps it was much smaller (and earlier) dinosaurs that also had these features?

Most creatures (including the early amphibianish reptiles) during the 300/290 million years ago period were aquatic (or mixed aquatic/land), and I would remind you that sometimes things are found earlier than expected.

There was a monkey type fossil found that dated to 47 million years ago, and before that discovery (roughly) a decade ago, nobody would have placed anything so old.

www.bing.com

47 million year old monkey

quote:

Scientists Debut A 47 Million-Year-Old Monkey Fossil ...

www.gettyimages.com/...cientists-debut-a-47-million-year-old...

Browse Scientists Debut A 47 Million-Year-Old Monkey Fossil latest photos. View images and find out more about Scientists Debut A 47 Million-Year-Old Monkey …

Hot Trends: 47 million year old monkey - blogspot.com

worldoftrend.blogspot.com/2009/05/47-million-year-old-monkey.html

May 19, 2009 · 47 million year old monkey. Fossil remains of a 47-million-year-old animal, found years ago in Germany, have been …
.

Scientists Debut A 47 Million-Year-Old Monkey Fossil - …

www.zimbio.com/...cientists+Debut+47+Million+Year+Old+Monkey

People view the 47 million year old fossilized remains of a primate is seen at the American Museum of Natural History May 19, 2009 in New York City. “Ida” is the ...
.

Fossil find may be monkey, human ancestor - UPI.com

www.upi.com › Science News

A University of Michigan professor says the discovery of a 47 million-year-old fossil may be from a primate species related to humans, apes and monkeys.
.

Million-year-old monkey fossil found underwater in …

www.independent.co.uk › News › Science

Million-year-old monkey fossil found ... 47/95 Thousands of dodos ... The discovery of a 100 million-year-old fossilised fungus which had 'poisonous and mind ...
.

Fossil Discovery Hailed as Link Between Monkey and …

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/...ive/Fossil-Discovery-Hailed-as...

A 47 million-year-old monkey fossil which hung for decades in obscurity on the wall of a collector may be the missing link between ancient primates and modern man.

MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, …

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ssing-link-found.html

"Ida," a "missing link ... who led the team that analyzed the 47-million-year-old ... "This specimen looks like a really early fossil monkey that belongs ...
.

47 Million Year Old Find.. | US Message Board - Political ...

www.usmessageboard.com › US Discussion › Science and Technology

May 19, 2009 · Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution. …


I just love it when something really early is found.

We should all be rooting for some really cool (and shockingly old) flying reptile discovery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2018 1:40 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2018 8:09 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 8 by caffeine, posted 01-24-2018 1:48 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 9 of 62 (827439)
01-25-2018 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by caffeine
01-24-2018 1:48 PM


Combo reply to PaulK and caffeine
Caffeine said:

quote:

Pterosaurs did stuff in common with birds; in the sense that they were also flying animals; and in that they appear to be the closest known relatives of dinosaurs (which birds, of course, are).

They had more in common with birds than you make it sound, and especially a lot more in common with archaeopteryx.

See this:

quote:

Pterosaur - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

Pterosaur bones were hollow and air-filled, like the bones of birds. They had a keeled breastbone that was developed for the attachment of flight muscles and an enlarged brain that shows specialised features associated with flight.


see this:

quote:

Pterosaurs, the earliest flying vertebrates, first appeared in the fossil record around 228 million years ago. Almost all have been found to have long tails and short skulls, necks and hands. According to the study, some time during the Jurassic period, pterosaurs underwent a “body plan reorganization” that resulted in the origin of the more advanced pterodactyloids, which appeared 60 million years later.

But for decades an incomplete fossil record kept the pterodactyloid’s origins a mystery, forming a wide gap between giant flying reptile and its closest pterosaur relative. Without that link, researchers’ understanding of the pterodactyloid was stunted, leaving many questions about the creature’s and evolution unanswered.

Then, in 2001, an international team — that included Andres, George Washington University biology professor James Clark, and Xu Xing of the Chinese Academy of Sciences — found pterodactyloid fossil remains in the mud pits of northwest China.

https://www.pbs.org/...evolution-gap-ancient-flying-reptiles


And they had a common ancestor that predated the dinosaurs.

quote:

Whenever a story about pterosaurs makes it into mainstream news outlets, it is almost inevitable the flying archosaurs are going to be mistakenly called “dinosaurs” by at least one source.
....
It might be easy to brush off my complaint as a case of paleo-pedantry, but word choice matters. “Dinosaur” is a word for a specific group of creatures united by shared characteristics and which had their own evolutionary history—it is not a catch-all term for anything reptilian and prehistoric. Calling a pterosaur a dinosaur is an error of the same order of magnitude as saying that our species is a marsupial, but to understand why we need to flesh out the evolutionary relationships of these animals
....

Let’s start from the bottom and work our way up. The Archosauria is a diverse group of reptiles which contains two major subsections: crocodiles and their close relatives (collectively called crurotarsans or pseudosuchians) are on one side of the split, and dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and their closest relatives (called avemetatarsalians) on the other. For our purposes here, we’re concerned with the second group.

Looking at the Avemetatarsalia (see the diagram above), a major split is apparent at the base of this group. On the one side are the dinosaurs and their closest relatives, and on the other are pterosaurs and animals more closely related to them than dinosaurs. Both pterosaurs and dinosaurs are distinct groups that shared a common ancestor, and so to call a pterosaur a dinosaur is to ignore this major divergence in the evolution of both groups. A pterosaur is no more a dinosaur than a goldfish is a shark.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/...is-not-a-dinosaur-87082921


Birds have a 4 chambered heart like Crocodiles, which come from a line that predates dinosaurs.

quote:

Crocodilia - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia

It has a four-chambered heart and two ventricles, an unusual trait among extant reptiles, and both a left and right aorta which are connected by a hole called the Foramen of Panizza. Like birds and mammals, crocodilians have heart valves that direct blood flow in a single direction through the heart chambers.


quote:

Why do crocodiles have a four-chambered heart? - Quora

https://www.quora.com/...codiles-have-a-four-chambered-heart

Reptiles tend to have a three chambered heart i.e,they have a common ventricle because of incompletely developed septum.But crocodile inspire of being a reptile has a completely developed septum due to which the ventricle is divided into right and left …
.

Crocodile hearts | Science News for Students

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/...e/crocodile-hearts

A crocodile's heart may help it digest large, bony meals. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Like mammal and bird hearts, a crocodile's heart is a muscle that pumps blood.
.

How many chambers do the crocodile have? - Quora

https://www.quora.com/...many-chambers-do-the-crocodile-have

Crocodiles have four chambered heart same as birds and mammals involving two ventricles and two auricles. Its an exception in the reptile family as the reptiles have ...
.

Did crocodiles always have 4 part heart, or did they …

https://plantsm14.imascientist.org.uk/...3/19/did-crocodiles...

Did crocodiles always have 4 part heart, ... don’t have a four chambered heart. ... it means that when the crocodile is underwater it’s heart rate can slow ...
.

How many chambers does a crocodile's heart have?? | …

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200711242344...

Nov 24, 2007 · Best Answer: Crocodiles have structurally speaking fully separated four-chambered hearts, but have strangely enough several features that allow the mixing of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood, so that the crocodile circulatory system can function as though it had a three-chambered heart.

Status: Resolved

Answers: 5

..

iucncsg.org - The Crocodilian Body

www.iucncsg.org/pages/The-Crocodilian-Body.html

Crocodilians, like mammals and birds, have a four-chambered heart (two atria and two separate ventricles). In the three-chambered reptile heart, blood destined for the lungs (deoxygenated blood) can mix in the partly divided ventricle with blood destined to go out to the body (oxygenated blood from the lungs).


How much is known about this common ancestor that predates the dinosaur?

How much has been found?

How much can be said?

quote:

What was the common ancestor of all dinosaurs?

Laura Cooper, Biologist-in-training, autistic, feminist.

Answered Dec 26, 2014

All dinosaurs are, along with crocodiles, pterosaurs, avian dinosaurs (aka birds) and others archosaurs. They are also members of the group Dinosauriformes, which includes dinosaurs and their closest possible non-dinosaur relatives. The non-dinosaur Dinosauriformes became extinct in the Triassic and only the true Dinosaurs remained. Therefore, the last common ancestor of all dinosaurs would have a Dinosauriformes from the Mid Triassic. It is likely that this creature would have looked a little like this:

....

This is the 235 million year old Lagosuchus, and it together with Marasuchus is believed to be close to the transitional form between cold blooded reptiles and warm blooded true dinosaurs.
Dinosaur Institute Origin of Dinosaurs | Natural History Museum of Los Angeles

We can rarely say for sure that we have found the last common ancestor of anything, as it is so hard to recognize a last common ancestor and it is unlikely that we have found the fossil of the last member of a species, before the species evolved into another one.(it can be estimated using molecular clocks, but that doesn't tell you the species of the organism), but an organism similar to Lagosuchus is probably something like that last common ancestor.

https://www.quora.com/...he-common-ancestor-of-all-dinosaurs


quote:

Dinosauriformes is a clade of archosaurian reptiles that include the dinosaurs and their most immediate relatives. All dinosauriformes are distinguished by several features, such as shortened forelimbs and a partially to fully perforated acetabulum, the hole in the hip socket traditionally used to define dinosaurs. The oldest known member is Asilisaurus, dating to about 245 million years ago in the Anisian age of the middle Triassic period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosauriformes


Not a broad window.

We are talking around 245 to 235 million years.

Much is missing, and links galore from before and after ( not to mention endless horizontal links like a chin linked fence)

Caffeine writes:

quote:

Pterosaurs and dinosaurs both appear before 200 million years ago, but I'm not sure why you consider this significant. Both groups first appear during the Triassic (which lasted from about 250-200 million years). You seem to be assuming that 'amphibian' means an animal which lives in water; but even today we have amphibians that live in deserts. At a time when the only terrestrial vertebrates were 'amphibians' (which in this sense just means non-amniote - ie; not part of the group including reptiles, birds and mammals), there would be less competition in fully terrestrial ecosystems. Whether or not something is a 'reptile' does not tell us whether it lived in dry conditions.

But in the Permian, there were lots of uncontroversial amniotes, and some of them lived in deserts.


Look at the Carboniferous period, which had lots of acidic forests, in which bird-like bones would dissolve.

quote:

Tetrapods[edit]

Carboniferous amphibians were diverse and common by the middle of the period, more so than they are today; some were as long as 6 meters, and those fully terrestrial as adults had scaly skin.[29] They included a number of basal tetrapod groups classified in early books under the Labyrinthodontia. These had long bodies, a head covered with bony plates and generally weak or undeveloped limbs. The largest were over 2 meters long. They were accompanied by an assemblage of smaller amphibians included under the Lepospondyli, often only about 15 cm (6 in) long. Some Carboniferous amphibians were aquatic and lived in rivers (Loxomma, Eogyrinus, Proterogyrinus); others may have been semi-aquatic (Ophiderpeton, Amphibamus, Hyloplesion) or terrestrial (Dendrerpeton, Tuditanus, Anthracosaurus).

The Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse slowed the evolution of amphibians who could not survive as well in the cooler, drier conditions. Reptiles, however, prospered due to specific key adaptations.[11] One of the greatest evolutionary innovations of the Carboniferous was the amniote egg, which allowed the laying of eggs in a dry environment, allowing for the further exploitation of the land by certain tetrapods. These included the earliest sauropsid reptiles (Hylonomus), and the earliest known synapsid (Archaeothyris). These small lizard-like animals quickly gave rise to many descendants, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Reptiles underwent a major evolutionary radiation in response to the drier climate that preceded the rainforest collapse.[11][30] By the end of the Carboniferous period, amniotes had already diversified into a number of groups, including protorothyridids, captorhinids, araeoscelids, and several families of pelycosaurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous


The Archaeothyris type (from 306 million years ago) is a point of interest, and birds might have evolved from a common ancestor, that dated much earlier.

Crocodile teeth tell a story.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=909287&...

brain clues:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(19991015)257:5%3C162::AID-AR5%3E3.0.CO;2-W/full

Put into bing:

bird lungs parallels ancestors fossil record dinosaurs crocodiles

quote:

Origin of birds - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

The origin of birds ... He was therefore forced to rule out dinosaurs as bird ancestors ... The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils ...
Research history ·
Phylogeny ·
Features linking ... ·
Debates ·
Footnotes
.

Evolution of reptiles - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_reptiles

Late in the period, the diapsid reptiles split into two main lineages, the archosaurs (ancestors of crocodiles and dinosaurs) and the lepidosaurs (predecessors of modern tuataras, lizards, and snakes).
First reptiles ·
Rise of Dinosaurs ·
The four orders of ...
.

Pulmonary anatomy in the Nile crocodile and the ... - PeerJ

https://peerj.com/articles/60

... and caudally to cranially in the dorsobronchi in the lungs of Nile crocodiles. ... The lungs of birds have long been known to ... in the fossil record with an ...


also put into engines:

archaeopteryx sac tubular lung

Archaeopteryx has a sac lung like the dinosaurs commonly said to be in their direct line ( sauropod therapod).

PaulK said:

quote:

The idea is that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs.

This was a criticism of my comment which indicated that Dinosaurs weren't ancestors

I said:

quote:

The idea is that all birds came from big bulky dinosaurs and it might be true

Here is an expert:

quote:

FROM THE FEBRUARY 2003 ISSUE

Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia—Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds

By Kathy A. Svitil|Saturday, February 01, 2003

Many of today's paleontologists say birds are dinosaurs—specifically, the surviving members of a group called theropods. But is it true? Alan Feduccia, an ornithologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, doesn't think so. He and a handful of other skeptics argue that birds evolved from an early dinosaur ancestor, making them only slightly closer relatives of T. rex than lizards are. Feduccia shared his views with Discover associate editor Kathy A. Svitil.

Why don't you think birds are descended from dinosaurs?
First, the time line is all wrong. These alleged dinosaurian ancestors of birds occur 25 million to 80 million years after Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird. Second, by the time you get to dinosaurs, you are dealing with fairly large, earthbound creatures, which means they would have had to evolve flight from the ground up, rather than from the trees down. Evolving flight from the ground up is biophysically implausible.

Third, many of the features of birds and dinosaurs—the hands and teeth for example—don't match. The theropod dinosaur hand consists of the thumb and the next two fingers. The bird hand is made up of the middle three fingers. You can't just flip a switch to go from one type of hand to the other. Of course, it doesn't matter what line of evidence you come up with, you are automatically wrong if it is anything contrary to the dinosaurian origins of birds.

What do you think the first birds were like?
I envision a hypothetical proto-bird as a rather small, arboreal creature, the size of a small lizard and weighing less than a couple of pounds, with feathers or proto-feathers. It would have used all four legs to jump from branch to branch and parachute, and then began gliding and active flight.

Some recent dinosaur fossils from China have a downy, featherlike covering. Doesn't that prove a link between dinosaurs and birds?
People have accepted that these filamentous structures—dino fuzz—represent proto-feathers. But these things do not resemble feathers, and I don't think they have anything to do with feathers. To me, they look like preserved skin fibers.

The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein. So while people imagining models for the evolution of feathers feel that filaments must be an intermediate step between scales and feathers, you really don't need that stage.

What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs?
When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue


He also said:

quote:
Is there anything that would convince you birds really did evolve from dinosaurs?
At the time period when birds are thought to have evolved, there are plenty of theropod dinosaurs, but they do not have the key birdlike features. Finding a feathered dinosaur that lived earlier, during the late Triassic, would be very convincing. Until we discover the critical specimens, the issue will never be laid to rest.

I would ask about the heart issue.

Can crocodiles hearts (which are like birds) be said to resemble the dinosaurs PaulK mentioned as ancestors?

Can Crocodiles (I'm thinking of their ancestors) be said to be in a vertical line that dates AFTER the dinosaurs PaulK mentioned?

Or.

Can Crocodiles (ancestors) be said to be in a horizontal line with the dinosaurs PaulK mentioned?

(They seem to be in a vertical line that pre-dates PaulK's theropod dinosaurs.)

Parallel issues to help illustrate my point:

(Butterfly issue)

quote:

Visiting a colleague in Germany in 2012, Boston College Research Professor Paul K. Strother was examining soil samples for pollen, spores, pieces of plants and insect legs - organic debris that might otherwise have been considered "pond scum" when it was trapped in sediment during cataclysmic earth events 200 million years ago.

The slides of rock samples drilled in the German countryside included some material that looked familiar to Strother, a Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences researcher at Boston College's Weston Observatory, who studies the origin and early evolution of land plants. What he saw were features similar to those found in insect wings.

The wrinkle was that these types of moths and butterflies - known as Lepidoptera - were long posited to have evolved 50 to 70 million years later, during the Cretaceous period when the first flowering plants emerged as their prime food source.

"The consensus has been that insects followed flowers," said Strother, a co-author of "A Triassic-Jurassic window into the evolution of Lepidoptera," a new report published today in Science Advances. "But that would be 50 million years later than what the wings were saying. It was odd to say the least, that there would be butterflies before there were flowers."

Five years later, Strother and colleagues from natural history museums in Germany and a university in the Netherlands have developed a scientific case showing the Lepidoptera evolved earlier than previously established - emerging during the Jurassic period.

Absent flowers, the researchers report, primitive moths and butterflies, known as the Glossata, developed the physical attributes - namely the sucking proboscis - to find nutrition by drawing off water droplets from the tips of immature gymnosperm seeds.

"What we've found is that these butterflies and moths with mouth parts were feeding on pollen droplets of gymnosperm seeds - from conifers related to pines, seed plants without fruits and flowers. They were feeding off the cone-borne seeds - mainly as a source of water," said Strother.

Even Charles Darwin called the mysterious evolution of flowering plants "an abominable mystery." Scientists have reckoned that flowering plants preceded the insects that fed off of them. But researchers have gradually started to piece together evidence that moths and butterflies existed earlier than the Cretaceous period, which began 145 million years ago

https://phys.org/...sts-evolution-which-came-first.html#nRlv


What a difference some single discovery makes!

caffeine said:

quote:

The key point is that, although fossils sometimes are indeed found which mean groups of animals must have been around longer than we thought, this is not relevant to your point. Birds evolved from terrestrial animals; so they could not have predated them.

But flying reptiles might have been marine (or from the environment)

And during a time when almost all non-insect life was still marine.

quote:

The metacarpal bone allowed a broader wingspan that proved more useful for the terrestrial environment where the specimen was found. It changed how the ancient beast walked and flew in its surroundings, Andres said, and allowed more wing shapes that were good for adapting to various environments.

The fossil fragments also challenged a long-held hypothesis that the pterodactyloid originated and thrived in marine environments.

Clark said that researchers hypothesized that pterodactyloids were mainly a marine group because they leaned heavily on specimens found in marine environments. Turns out, Clark explained, this was because the pterodactyloid’s brittle skeletons can be easily preserved in quiet, unhurried waters along a seashore.

On land, the large, hollow bones of a pterodactyloid face being crushed under millions of years of sediment build-up or disturbed by energetic rivers that can easily chew things up, Clark added.

https://www.pbs.org/...evolution-gap-ancient-flying-reptiles


The jury is still out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by caffeine, posted 01-24-2018 1:48 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 1:19 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 14 by caffeine, posted 01-25-2018 1:16 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 10 of 62 (827440)
01-25-2018 12:58 AM


Put this into search engines.
CROCODILES COMMON ANCESTOR DINOSAURS

like

www.bing.com

How does this relate to the Sauropod theory?

quote:

What was the common ancestor of all dinosaurs? | Dinosaurs

https://www.quora.com/...he-common-ancestor-of-all-dinosaurs

All dinosaurs are, along with crocodiles, pterosaurs, avian dinosaurs (aka birds) and others archosaurs. They are also members of the group Dinosauriformes, which ...
.

Scientists reconstruct genome of common ancestor of ...

https://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html

Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of the birds, sharing a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago and also gave rise to the dinosaurs.

Did crocodiles descend from dinosaurs? | HowStuffWorks

animals.howstuffworks.com › … › Reptiles › Alligators & Crocodiles

Crocodiles and dinosaurs definitely lived ... Did crocodiles descend from dinosaurs? X. ... the only extant species that share a common ancestor with dinosaurs.
.

Crocodile ancestor was top predator before dinosaurs ...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/...ses/2015/03/150319080348.htm

Scientists Reconstruct Genome of Common Ancestor of Crocodiles, Birds, Dinosaurs. Dec. 11, 2014 — Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of birds, sharing a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago and also gave rise to the dinosaurs. A new study of crocodilian genomes reveals ...
.

Crocodiles - The Ancient Cousins of the Dinosaurs - …

https://www.thoughtco.com/crocodiles-the-ancient-cousins-of...

Here's the story of the last 200 million years of crocodile evolution, ... Along with pterosaurs and dinosaurs, crocodiles were an offshoot of the archosaurs, ...

Crocodile Family Tree | HowStuffWorks

animals.howstuffworks.com › … › Reptiles › Alligators & Crocodiles

Though dinosaurs and crocodiles have the common ancestor with the archosaur, they evolved separately. Today, habitat destruction threatens the livelihood of some crocodile species. Though they could weather an asteroid blast that altered the physical world, humans might be edging them out.
.

Croc-like fossil reveals earliest dinosaur ancestor

https://newatlas.com/crocodile-dinosaur-discovery-telocrater...

Croc-like fossil reveals earliest dinosaur ancestor. Biology. ... a missing link between dinosaurs and the common ancestor they share with crocodiles," says Ken ...
.

Is this prehistoric 'predator crocodile' a common ancestor ...

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/fossils/is-this...

Is this prehistoric 'predator crocodile' a common ancestor of all crocs and dinosaurs? Is this prehistoric 'predator crocodile' a common ancestor of all crocs and ...
.

What was the last common ancestor of all the dinosaurs ...

https://www.quora.com/...the-last-common-ancestor-of-all-the...

Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of the birds, sharing a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago and also gave rise to the dinosaurs.
.

Crocodiles are 'stuck in the past': Genetic study shows ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/...tech/article-2870411/Crocodiles-stuck...

Crocodiles are a close living relatives of birds, but compared to their feathered cousins, they are stuck in the past, scientists claim. Both groups of animals share a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago, and also gave rise to the dinosaurs



Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 1:50 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 01-25-2018 6:15 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 15 of 62 (827453)
01-25-2018 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
01-25-2018 1:19 AM


Re: Combo reply to PaulK and caffeine
quote:

Idiot.
Although you already proved that by trying to argue that where Genesis talked about trees springing up in land it really meant seaweed.

So crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than lizards and snakes are. How is that relevant ? It doesn’t change anything.

Stop trying to bury the conversation in irrelevancies.


So what about the theropoda theory?

It isn't my fault you said birds came from theropods.

And the point that it seems to be, perhaps, a falsified theory, isn't an "irrelevancie".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropoda

The theropods came AFTER the 245-235 million "common ancestor".

And I deny that this 240 million year old (Dinosauriformes) "common ancestor" really dated BEFORE birds (and the line that led to Crocodiles).

I think there is a major issue with the Crocodile heart (which is like birds), and there was, I suspect, common ancestor to both (300 million years ago?) which had hearts like birds/crocodiles on the one hand while it would later split off into other lines (with typical reptile hearts) like the LATER (in my opinion and speculation) "240 million year old common ancestor", which is only a "so-called common ancestor" birds.

Dinosauriformes came AFTER birds and crocodiles already existed.

Birds branched off (around 275 million years ago) and BECAME the line that would lead to bigger Dinosauriformes. The birds and the ancestor of the Dinosauriformes went in different directions.

Dinosauriformes (ended 235 million years ago in the record) DID LEAD TO THEROPOD DINOSAURS.

Theropod dinosaurs (which started 230 million years ago) did not lead to birds (not the ones today anyway and not Archaeopteryx).

The Theropod dinosaurs maintained the EARLIER sac type lung (which reptiles later all had tubular lungs") as did the Sauropod dinosaurs.

Birds did not get anything from Theropod dinosaurs.

THEY DID NOT EVEN POST DATE THE DINOSAURIFORMES (which is the current view I guess)

Sauropods started 231 million years ago.

Dinosauriformes was 245-335 million years ago (though probably a fair ways earlier in date ACTUALLY).

The PaulK views is what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 1:19 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 1:56 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 01-25-2018 2:29 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 19 of 62 (827592)
01-28-2018 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by caffeine
01-25-2018 2:29 PM


Caffeine
I lost some data on my computer. I was doing some research that looked at lungs types for Pteranodon (or some type creatures) and birds, but my computer crashed a few days ago.

I had something pasted (from Wikipedia?) that really caught my attention.

The off thing was that my narrow paste was (as I found out later) ALSO taken notice of on some blog dedicated to making the case that birds evolved from Pterosaur type creatures ( I don't think that exactly).

I found a blog that actually pasted the same thing I was going to paste here as part of a post(relatively small text from, Wikipedia?).

Now I can find neither the blog (which is quite detailed) nor the site that I got my paste from.

But the 4 chambered heart belonging to dinosaurs actually backs up my point ( I did not notice it earlier).

Theropoda have:

sac type lungs

hollow bones

(possibly) 4 chambered hearts

Just like:

Birds do.

Just like flying reptile pterosaurs do.

quote:

Why on earth are you so interested in the heart? Everyone (except creationists) is in entire agreement that crocodiles are the nearest living relatives of birds. The hearts don't matter to their relations to extinct animals.

But they do.

Here is a scientist that proposes a pre-dinosaur "crocodilomorph" creature that evolved into birds.

Artcile is "Birds do it . . . did dinosaurs?", by Pat Shipman (1997).

(It requires a subscription, and honestly, I might actuallysubscribe as the prices are dirt cheap for both print and web)

https://www.newscientist.com/...00-birds-do-it-did-dinosaurs

(all this blather about creationists, from various posters here, caused me to look for some creationists links this morning. It actually was helpful to see some of their references to evolutionary scientists, and in fact it led me to this New Scientist article)

quote:

I'm a little bit confused by the rest of your sentence, but I am wondering if you're trying to suggest that dinosaur hearts were more like lizard hearts than bird and crocodile hearts. Why would anyone think that?

Just in case this is the source of confusion; lizards and snakes are not descended from dinosaurs.


I was saying that there was a proto-bird that predated dinosaurs (but evolved from very early semi-aquatic reptiles or early land reptiles, at a time when most - but not all - reptiles were sort of amphibious), but already had an evolved (or transitioning) 4 chambered heart.

I do see the illogic in assuming that Theropod dinosaurs would have went back to having a "standard reptile heart" if they were descended from birds (or proto birds). I was suggesting that they lacked the exact "same" type of bird heart. Call it a "degenerate" bird heart that never quite was the same thing. I was assuming many intermediate or rapidly evolving heart-type variants in the proto-bird would have branched off into many directions. (Where it was, say 260 million years ago, is not known)

My big thing is that the "branches" on the family tree lack hundreds of horizontal cousins that would have been more accurately described as the actual ancestor (of whatever group), AND THAT STILL OVERLOOKS the fact that some single "common ancestor" from a given year (say 240 million years ago) might actually postdate the actual date of the common ancestor by 20 million years or (30 million?) so.

The branches lack vertical depth too.

Vertical means "years before or after", and "horizontal" means all the current cousins.

But as Dinosaurs aren't even reptiles(?), it seems they might have got warm blood from already evolved (with warm-blood) proto-birds.

They are a dead branch with no living descendants.

Snakes and lizards predated them like birds did.

YOU ASK ME WHAT IS THE ISSUE EXACTLY?

I suppose the issue is that the evidence can be argued both ways if one wants to argue that birds came from dinosaurs or from a previous reptile line.

The argument is mostly due to lack of fossils.

Do you have a list of all the reptile fossils before 300 million years ago?

Before 275 million years ago?

The number is very slight before 250 million years ago, but I don't know the exact number.

Flying birds are unlikely to be buried, and they must be considered a candidate for much earlier dates, considering all the evidence.

Look again at the butterfly issue from just this month!

quote:

Scientists have accidentally found the oldest ever butterfly or moth fossils

January 12, 2018 1.10pm EST

....

The fossil record of ancient Lepidoptera is surprisingly meagre. Although butterflies may appear to be delicate creatures, their external skeletons are made of the same tough material, chitin, that all insects are made of. And chitin, or chitin decay products, preserve really very well in the fossil record.

....

In fact, some of the best ever fossils are of insects entombed in amber. Fossil Lepidoptera have been reported from a few exceptional deposits. For example, butterflies are known from the famous Florissant fossil beds of North America dating from the Eocene epoch, 34 million-years-old. A fossil caterpillar with the characteristic spinneret (the body part that produces silk) typical of all modern butterflies and moths has been reported from 125 million-year-old Lebanese amber. But until now, the fossil record went back no further.

This is especially odd because the Lepidoptera are closely related to another familiar modern group of insects, the caddis flies or Trichoptera. This group has an excellent fossil record extending back to the Permian period of the Palaeozoic era (250m years ago). As these groups share a common ancestor, the earliest Lepidoptera should, theoretically, also be found in the Permian period.

Lucky accident

The newly discovered fossils aren’t quite that old but they do date to the end of the Triassic period, the beginning of the age of dinosaurs. The delicate fossils bear the highly characteristic scales of butterflies and moths. They were discovered entirely by accident when researchers tried to extract pollen grains from rock samples from a borehole in north Germany to date the strata.

https://theconversation.com/...tterfly-or-moth-fossils-90029


Also, another Archaeopteryx was found in Germany and published in the last day or so (after my thread and my last posts) Here is the oldest link (just 2 days old), among a growing number of news stories.

https://peerj.com/articles/4191/

(Nothing drastic was discovered as far as age though, but it is illogical to assume that this, very likely FLYING creature, was anywhere near the first of its type)

https://peerj.com/articles/4191/

The title might indicate a terrible bias (Theropoda?)

quote:

The oldest Archaeopteryx (Theropoda: Avialiae): a new specimen from the Kimmeridgian/Tithonian boundary of Schamhaupten, Bavaria

(side note, oldest plants found to be 472 million years old.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...lants-unearthed-Argentina.html )

I will conclude, for now, by saying that the Theropoda did not have original features which required birds to be seen as descended from them, did they?

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 01-25-2018 2:29 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:21 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 32 by caffeine, posted 01-29-2018 1:48 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 20 of 62 (827594)
01-28-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
01-25-2018 1:56 PM


PaulK
quote:

I’m going to stick with mainstream science which rejects Feduccia’s arguments - with good reason - and goes with the evidence. Speculating about internal organs which are generally not preserved is not evidence.

But, you better open your eyes to the additional possibilities.

I found this following the relevant part of Caffeine's Wikipedia paste.

quote:

Modern reptiles, which are coldblooded, have three-chambered hearts, with two aortas and only one ventricle; crocodiles have two ventricles but they are incompletely separated. Thus, oxygenated blood from the lungs and deoxygenated blood from the rest of the body become mixed in these reptilian hearts, reducing the overall oxygen content of blood returned to the body and limiting the metabolic rates and activity of these animals.

''A single systemic aorta communicating with the left ventricle greatly reduces the risk of shunting and can be considered a means of more efficiently supporting prolonged periods of high activity,'' the discovery team said in its report.

What makes the discovery especially surprising and puzzling is that the heart resembles a mammal's or bird's but it belonged to an ornithischian, or bird-hipped, dinosaur, one of the two main lineages of these great reptiles. Despite the name, these dinosaurs were far removed from those that were presumed by many paleontologists to have been ancestors of birds; these ancestors were presumed to be theropods, members of the other main lineage known as the saurischian, or lizard-hipped, dinosaurs.

It is therefore possible, Dr. Russell said, that dinosaurs of both lineages -- not just the bird ancestors -- had advanced hearts and high metabolisms. This physiology may have evolved independently or it could stretch all the way back to a common ancestor, some 235 million years ago.

''This means our entire conception of dinosaurs may have to be revised,'' said Dr. Norell of the American Museum of Natural History.

The discovery team said in its report, ''Whether high metabolic rates and advance hearts arose once or more than once among dinosaurs remains an open question.''

http://www.nytimes.com/...found-the-heart-of-a-dinosaur.html



This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 1:56 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:27 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 23 of 62 (827603)
01-28-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
01-28-2018 11:21 AM


PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
Maniraptora

Late Jurassic–Present (167 million years ago to now)

quote:

Maniraptorans are the only dinosaurs known to have breast bones

But Pterosaurs have breast bones.

google Pterosaur sternum

My computer has essentially shut down. (there is a ghost of windows appearing over my post)

I will try to write down my sites, so I can respond later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:40 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 25 of 62 (827605)
01-28-2018 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
01-28-2018 11:40 AM


Re: PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
quote:

Pterosaurs aren’t dinosaurs, so there’s no contradiction there.
More importantly you aren’t addressing the wrist joint. In fact you seem to be deliberately ignoring it.

Thanks for proving my point. Because these features predated dinosaurs (230 million year ago start?).

(and my computer, and all of the windows crashed, I was lucky to even get my post sent. I couldn't even pencil down my sites and google searches)

from Wikipedia page:

quote:

Alternative interpretations[edit]

In 2002, Czerkas and Yuan reported that some maniraptoran traits, such as a long, backwards-pointed pubis, short ischia, as well as a perforated acetabulum (a hip socket that is a hole) are apparently absent in Scansoriopteryx. The authors considered it to be more primitive than true theropods, and hypothesized that maniraptorans may have branched off from theropods at a very early point, or may even have descended from pre-theropod dinosaurs.[13] Zhang et al., in describing the closely related or conspecific specimen Epidendrosaurus, did not report any of the primitive traits mentioned by Czerkas and Yuan, but did find that the shoulder blade of Epidendrosaurus appeared primitive. Despite this, they placed Epidendrosaurus firmly within Maniraptora.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptora


Follow the link in that paragraph

quote:

Alternate interpretations[edit]

Main article: Origin of birds

Czerkas and Yuan used the suite of primitive and birdlike characters in Scansoriopteryx to argue for an unorthodox interpretation of dinosaur evolution. They stated that Scansoriopteryx was "clearly more primitive than Archaeopteryx", based on its primitive, "saurischian-style" pubis and robust ischia. Scansoriopteryx also lacks a fully perforated acetabulum, the hole in the hip socket which is a key characteristic of Dinosauria and has traditionally been used to define the group. While the authors allowed that the hole may have closed secondarily, having evolved from a more traditional dinosaurian hip socket, they cited the other primitive features to argue that it is a true primitive trait, which would make Scansoriopteryx among the most birdlike and the most primitive known dinosaurs. Czerkas and Yuan called it a "proto-maniraptoran", supporting the hypothesis of Gregory S. Paul that the lager, ground-dwelling maniraptorans like Velociraptor evolved from small, flying or gliding forms that lived in trees. The authors took this idea further than Paul, however, and lent support to George Olshevsky's 1992 "birds came first" hypothesis, that all true theropods are secondarily flightless or at least secondarily arboreal, having evolved from small, tree-dwelling, Scansoriopteryx-like ancestors. Czerkas and Yuan also argued that, contrary to most phylogenetic trees, maniraptorans form a separate lineage from other theropods, and that this split occurred very early in theropod evolution.[1]

In 2014, Czerkas, along with Alan Feduccia, published a paper further describing Scansoriopteryx and stating their opinion that certain archaic features of the skeleton and the hypothesis that it was arboreal ruled out the possibility that it was a theropod or even a dinosaur, but that Scansoriopteryx and all birds evolved from non-dinosaurian avemetatarsalian archosaurs like Scleromochlus.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopteryx


I will have more to say later.

Now time is not convenient.

I lost like 25 windows of research like twice now (once today and around 4 days ago).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 1:02 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 27 of 62 (827632)
01-29-2018 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
01-28-2018 1:02 PM


Re: PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
quote:

And the article you quote of Scanisoriopteryx indicates more problems for you:

The dating is uncertain even for Epidendrosaurus (which may be the same species or a very close relative)

quote:

The holotype skeleton of Epidendrosaurus was recovered from the Daohugou fossil beds of northeastern China. In the past, there has been some uncertainty regarding the age of these beds. Various papers have placed the fossils here anywhere from the Middle Jurassic period (169 million years ago) to the Early Cretaceous period (122 ma).[10]

But even worse for Scanisoriopteryx

The provenance of the Scansoriopteryx type specimen is uncertain, as it was obtained from private fossil dealers who did not record exact geologic data.


The man who named it is dead.

First, the man who named the variant is dead.

http://dinosaur-museum.org/stephenczerkasmemorial.htm

quote:

Dinosaur Museum Journal[edit]

In 2002 the Czerkases published a volume through their Dinosaur Museum titled Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight. In this journal they described and named several species.[16] Of the six species named in the book, five are disputed.

Despite the work of Zhou et al. (2002), Czerkas and co-author Xu Xing described the upper portion of the "Archaeoraptor" fossil as a new bird genus, Archaeovolans, in the Dinosaur Museum Journal. The article does include the caveat that it might actually be a specimen of Yanornis.[17] Thus, this same fossil specimen has been named "Archaeoraptor", Archeovolans, and Yanornis, in different places.

Across the monographs in the Dinosaur Museum Journal, Stephen Czerkas built a case for his controversial view that maniraptoran dinosaurs are secondarily flightless birds. In so doing, he criticized prominent paleontologists. In the text on Cryptovolans, Czerkas accused Dr. Mark Norell of misinterpreting the fossil BPM 1 3-13 as having long leg feathers due to the "blinding influences of preconceived ideas."[17] In fact, though, Norell's interpretation was correct, and Czerkas added leg feathers to his own reconstruction of the fossil in the art that promotes the traveling exhibit.[18]

Two other taxa that Czerkas and his co-authors named were later treated as junior synonyms by other authors. Czerkas' Cryptovolans was treated as Microraptor,[19] and his Scansoriopteryx was treated as Epidendrosaurus.[19][20] Czerkas described Omnivoropteryx, noting that it was similar to Sapeornis. Later specimens of Sapeornis with skulls demonstrated that the two were probably synonymous.[21]

Another taxon that Czerkas assigned to the pterosauria and named Utahdactylus was reviewed by Dr. Chris Bennett. Bennett found multiple misidentifications of bones and inconsistencies between Czerkas' diagrams and the actual fossils. Bennett found the specimen to be an indeterminate diapsid and criticized the previous authors for publishing a species name when no diagnostic characters below the class level could be verified. He made Utahdactylus a nomen dubium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor


Secondly, it seems that ALL feathered dinosaurs (aside from Archaeopteryx) date from the same period as they are from the same Chinese formation. They are from the Barrremian stage of the Early Cretaceous? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Archaeopteryx is STILL the "oldest" after all of this?

And even the feathers are controversial.

http://bio.unc.edu/...2011/04/Journal-of-Morphology-2005.pdf

quote:

You’re wrong about the wrist joint and the breast bone is more likely parallel evolution - it’s the simpler change of the two.

And I’ll point out that Feduccia’s arguments have been largely discredited, and only the more extreme “alternative interpretations” help you - and they lack evidence.


The issue is older lines than theropods having these features (though they might fully develop after the 230 million year beginning of dinosaurs).

I didn't exactly mean to include the wrist issue in with the breastbone.

The theory is about how distal carpal becomes the semilunate carpal, which allows a swivel in the wrist joint. It is related to maniraptorans and birds.

But there are strange disappearances and reappearances.

And the pterosaur issue is relevant.

http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/...4/semilunate-carpal.html

p. 154 of this recent Feducia book, about our specimen (Scansoriopteryx) in question "there is an avian like semilunate carpal".

Mark Witton said that wrists in pterosaurs "bore a sliding joint permitting at least 30 degrees of rotation between them" in his book.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SihlpQTlVdAC&pg=PA150&lp...(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)&source=bl&ots=jTl0Vyg1bh&sig=0pKrv2ph457hUDTn1c3T4-yEBC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WyYTVP6qCcSryATTxYCwDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=pelvis%20is%20still%2 0like%20that%20of%20a%20reptile%20(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)%20&f=false

quote:

p.149-150

IN 2002, STILL ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCOVERY WAS REPORTED IN SEVERAL JOURNALS INDEPENDENTLY. a DIMINUTIVE AND PECULIAR ARCHOSAUR, EPIDENDROSAURUS ("upon tree lizard"), was described by Fucheng Zhang and colleagues as a maniraptoran dinosaur, the group containing dromaeosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, and troodontids ( and perhaps therizinosaurs and alvarezsaurids), although it apparently lacks any salient theropod synapomorphies. 142 Though not well preserved, Epidendrosaurus possessed feathers that resemble those of the dromaeosaurid Microraptor, lacked the fully perforated acetabulum characteristic of theropods, and had a strange elongate outer finger, which is longest of the manus (in theropods the middle is the longest) and analogously resembles the digger finger of the tiny Malagasy primate aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis), which uses it elongated tool for probing in tree crevices. To date, a number of specimens have been described, and important questions are raised by this enegmaic group, not the least of which are just what they are and which groups they are most closely allied with. Overlooking the obvious specialization of the elongate outer finger, it is difficult to justify classifying ythis small ancestral archosaur as a theropod. Are they simply basal birds or even basal archosaurs? Why are they even called theropods? Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and his Chinese colleague Chongxi Yuan independently described another specimen of the small Epidendrosaurus in 2002 and named it Scansoriopteryx (climbing wing"). There was some confusion concerning priority because of the near simultaneous descriptions of different specimens, but Scansoriopteryx is generally accepted as a junior synonym of Epidendrosaurus, although the family name is derived from the designation by Czerkas and Yuan (hence Scansoriopterygidae, "climbing wings"). 144


Here are 5 (of 13) Features that predate theropods, and read on to see about 6 avian features.

quote:

p.154
Outer digdit of manus longer than other digits (in all theropods the middle digit is the longest)

Outer metacarpal straight, more robust, and longer than the mid-metacarpal

Phalanges of outer manus digit becomes a progressively shorter distally (as in basal archosaurs)

Acetabulum shallow and largely closed (fully opened in theropods and dinosaurs in general)

Supro-acetabular crest absent or with only incipient development as a low rim


Put this into search engines

www.bing.com

www.google.com

scansoriopteryx feduccia

His theories are current and he published a 2014 journal article on the issue.

NOT REFUTED AT ALL!

And he is not the only one who reached the pre theropod view btw.

It seems to have come largely from others.

quote:

Dinosaur Museum Journal[edit]

In 2002 the Czerkases published a volume through their Dinosaur Museum titled Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight. In this journal they described and named several species.[16] Of the six species named in the book, five are disputed.

Despite the work of Zhou et al. (2002), Czerkas and co-author Xu Xing described the upper portion of the "Archaeoraptor" fossil as a new bird genus, Archaeovolans, in the Dinosaur Museum Journal. The article does include the caveat that it might actually be a specimen of Yanornis.[17] Thus, this same fossil specimen has been named "Archaeoraptor", Archeovolans, and Yanornis, in different places.

Across the monographs in the Dinosaur Museum Journal, Stephen Czerkas built a case for his controversial view that maniraptoran dinosaurs are secondarily flightless birds. In so doing, he criticized prominent paleontologists. In the text on Cryptovolans, Czerkas accused Dr. Mark Norell of misinterpreting the fossil BPM 1 3-13 as having long leg feathers due to the "blinding influences of preconceived ideas."[17] In fact, though, Norell's interpretation was correct, and Czerkas added leg feathers to his own reconstruction of the fossil in the art that promotes the traveling exhibit.[18]

Two other taxa that Czerkas and his co-authors named were later treated as junior synonyms by other authors. Czerkas' Cryptovolans was treated as Microraptor,[19] and his Scansoriopteryx was treated as Epidendrosaurus.[19][20] Czerkas described Omnivoropteryx, noting that it was similar to Sapeornis. Later specimens of Sapeornis with skulls demonstrated that the two were probably synonymous.[21]

Another taxon that Czerkas assigned to the pterosauria and named Utahdactylus was reviewed by Dr. Chris Bennett. Bennett found multiple misidentifications of bones and inconsistencies between Czerkas' diagrams and the actual fossils. Bennett found the specimen to be an indeterminate diapsid and criticized the previous authors for publishing a species name when no diagnostic characters below the class level could be verified. He made Utahdactylus a nomen dubium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor


Secondly, it seems that ALL feathered dinosaurs (aside from Archaeopteryx) date from the same period as they are from the same Chinese formation. They are from the Barrremian stage of the Early Cretaceous? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Archaeopteryx is STILL the "oldest" after all of this?

And even the feathers are controversial.

http://bio.unc.edu/...2011/04/Journal-of-Morphology-2005.pdf

quote:

You’re wrong about the wrist joint and the breast bone is more likely parallel evolution - it’s the simpler change of the two.

And I’ll point out that Feduccia’s arguments have been largely discredited, and only the more extreme “alternative interpretations” help you - and they lack evidence.


The issue is older lines than theropods having these features (though they might fully develop after the 230 million year beginning of dinosaurs).

I didn't exactly mean to include the wrist issue in with the breastbone.

The theory is about how distal carpal becomes the semilunate carpal, which allows a swivel in the wrist joint. It is related to maniraptorans and birds.

But there are strange disappearances and reappearances.

And the pterosaur issue is relevant.

http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/...4/semilunate-carpal.html

p. 154 of this recent Feducia book, about our specimen (Scansoriopteryx) in question "there is an avian like semilunate carpal".

Mark Witton said that wrists in pterosaurs "bore a sliding joint permitting at least 30 degrees of rotation between them" in his book.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SihlpQTlVdAC&pg=PA150&lp...(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)&source=bl&ots=jTl0Vyg1bh&sig=0pKrv2ph457hUDTn1c3T4-yEBC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WyYTVP6qCcSryATTxYCwDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=pelvis%20is%20still%2 0like%20that%20of%20a%20reptile%20(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)%20&f=false

quote:

p.149-150

IN 2002, STILL ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCOVERY WAS REPORTED IN SEVERAL JOURNALS INDEPENDENTLY. a DIMINUTIVE AND PECULIAR ARCHOSAUR, EPIDENDROSAURUS ("upon tree lizard"), was described by Fucheng Zhang and colleagues as a maniraptoran dinosaur, the group containing dromaeosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, and troodontids ( and perhaps therizinosaurs and alvarezsaurids), although it apparently lacks any salient theropod synapomorphies. 142 Though not well preserved, Epidendrosaurus possessed feathers that resemble those of the dromaeosaurid Microraptor, lacked the fully perforated acetabulum characteristic of theropods, and had a strange elongate outer finger, which is longest of the manus (in theropods the middle is the longest) and analogously resembles the digger finger of the tiny Malagasy primate aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis), which uses it elongated tool for probing in tree crevices. To date, a number of specimens have been described, and important questions are raised by this enegmaic group, not the least of which are just what they are and which groups they are most closely allied with. Overlooking the obvious specialization of the elongate outer finger, it is difficult to justify classifying ythis small ancestral archosaur as a theropod. Are they simply basal birds or even basal archosaurs? Why are they even called theropods? Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and his Chinese colleague Chongxi Yuan independently described another specimen of the small Epidendrosaurus in 2002 and named it Scansoriopteryx (climbing wing"). There was some confusion concerning priority because of the near simultaneous descriptions of different specimens, but Scansoriopteryx is generally accepted as a junior synonym of Epidendrosaurus, although the family name is derived from the designation by Czerkas and Yuan (hence Scansoriopterygidae, "climbing wings"). 144


Here are 5 (of 13) Features that predate theropods, and read on to see about 6 avian features.

quote:

p.154
Outer digdit of manus longer than other digits (in all theropods the middle digit is the longest)

Outer metacarpal straight, more robust, and longer than the mid-metacarpal

Phalanges of outer manus digit becomes a progressively shorter distally (as in basal archosaurs)

Acetabulum shallow and largely closed (fully opened in theropods and dinosaurs in general)

Supro-acetabular crest absent or with only incipient development as a low rim


Put this into search engines

www.bing.com

www.google.com

scansoriopteryx feduccia

His theories are current and he published a 2014 journal article on the issue.

NOT REFUTED AT ALL!

And he is not the only one who reached the pre theropod view btw.

It seems to have come largely from others.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 1:02 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 1:48 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 29 of 62 (827651)
01-29-2018 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
01-29-2018 1:48 AM


PaulK on the run. Won't respond to 2014 journal (nobody will).
Here is the complete list of PRE THEROPOD characteristics .from the 2012 book.

Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China
By Alan Feduccia

p.154

Table 4:2

quote:

Pretheropod characteristics

Outer digdit of manus longer than other digits (in all theropods the middle digit is the longest)

Outer metacarpal straight, more robust, and longer than the mid-metacarpal

Phalanges of outer manus digit becomes a progressively shorter distally (as in basal archosaurs)

Acetabulum shallow and largely closed (fully opened in theropods and dinosaurs in general)

Supro-acetabular crest absent or with only incipient development as a low rim

Anteriorly directed pubic bones of short length reminiscent of the lagosuchid archosaurs(Marasuchus)

Pubic peduncle very small and expanded

Distal ends of pubes and ischia not fused distally

Pubes lack pubic boot

Ischia longer and more robust than pubis

Femus without offset head (offset at right angle even in baby theropods); this indicates that scansoriopterids did not have a fully upright limb posture

Femur lacks a distinct neck or rounded head

Scapula expanded distally

Avian characteristics

Forelimbs long, greater than known theropods, nearly the length of that in Archaeopteryx

Presence of semilunate carpal

Primary feathers on manus present (as indicated by impressions of several rachides preserved along the metacarpals; note that the total length is unknown, and whether these feathers were fully asymmetrical and pennaceous is unknown)

Anisodactyl perching foot with reversed hallux

Tail with short anterior caudal vertebrae followed by elongated posterior vertebrae in Sansoriopteryx/Epidendrosaurus (note that the tail is short and resembles a pygostyle in Epidexipteryx)

Elongate tendons overlapping two or more vertebrae in Sansoriopteryx/Epidendrosaurus (similar to dromaeosaurs)


Then text on page 154.

quote:

Czerkas and Yuan conclude by noting that while the scansoriopterid "represents an aboreal precursor of Archaeopteryx, in essence it also represents a 'protomaniraptoran' ...and it prepresents 'an arboreal lineage of theropods,' or a 'pre-theropod' lineage of saurischian archosaurs [which the authors favor] which could climb." 147 Even Zhang and colleagues, who described Epidendrosaurus provisionally as an aboreal coelurosaur, note, "Phylogenetic analysis has shown that Epidendrosaurus is very close to the transition to birds." They do not go so far as to state that this animal is not a theropod, but they do state that the "climbing function in Epidendrosaurus was acquired before birds." 148


I believe the creature lacks a wishbone (considered a significant theropoda piece of bird evolution evidence, but we might very well see that it wasn't there originally) or any collar bone, but I need to check again.

The 2014 journal was published.

http://esciencenews.com/...ng.great.great.grandparents.birds

quote:

Researchers declassify dinosaurs as being the great-great-grandparents of birds

Published: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - 18:52 in Paleontology & Archaeology

The re-examination of a sparrow-sized fossil from China challenges the commonly held belief that birds evolved from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs that gained the ability to fly. The birdlike fossil is actually not a dinosaur, as previously thought, but much rather the remains of a tiny tree-climbing animal that could glide, say American researchers Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina. The study appears in Springer's Journal of Ornithology. The fossil of the Scansoriopteryx (which means "climbing wing") was found in Inner Mongolia, and is part of an ongoing cooperative study with the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. It was previously classified as a coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur, from which many experts believe flying dinosaurs and later birds evolved. The research duo used advanced 3D microscopy, high resolution photography and low angle lighting to reveal structures not clearly visible before. These techniques made it possible to interpret the natural contours of the bones. Many ambiguous aspects of the fossil's pelvis, forelimbs, hind limbs, and tail were confirmed, while it was discovered that it had elongated tendons along its tail vertebrae similar to Velociraptor.


see also

quote:

Ground-Dwelling Dinosaurs May Not Have Evolved into Birds: Fossil Reveals Different Origins

"Instead of regarding birds as deriving from dinosaurs, Scansoriopteryx …

Science World Report3y


(this below was mistake on my part. Something else)sorry

quote:

Convergent evolution - ScienceDaily

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm

... birds, pterosaurs, and bats. ... Convergent evolution is similar to, but distinguishable from, the phenomena of evolutionary relay and parallel evolution.


PaulK can respond to this cutting edge discovery or not.

Even Zhang and his team noticed the primitive shoulder blade (I THINK THERE IS NO COLLAR BONE OR AT LEAST NO WISHBONE ), while Czerkas and Yuan made a bigger issue out of many more primitive characteristics and flatly stated that it was of an order no later than the very early Theropoda (like 230 million years ago when they started).

PaulK is dancing around the issue that Archaeopteryx is STILL the oldest, so he can't make an issue out of this creature dating AFTER the fully formed bird. The order is still earlier, based on the evidence.

Pterosaurs date just after the 240 million split from dinosaurs common ancestor, or so they say.

quote:

There’s a long list of irrationality and irrelevance. So Czerkas has died? How is that relevant? Or is it just an excuse to make your post really boring so that nobody will read it.

While preserved feathers are rare evidence of feathers can be found in specimens found outside China (e.g. quill knobs) and the most famous archaeopteryx. A feathered tail, preserved in amber was found in Myanmar. Even inside China many come from a different formation, the Yixian. So your idea that only a single formation provides all the feathered dinosaur fossils is definitely wrong.

Pterosaurs are unlikely bird ancestors from the differences in wing structure alone.

Epidendrosaurus has already been discussed and pointing to arguments about the classification is hardly sufficient to resolve the argument in your favour.


I would say that Pterosaurs and birds might have had a common ancestor back around 275 million to 300 million years ago then split (say 270 million years ago). Birds might have split around 250 million years from theropods. Birds were the original (or a major part of the original) theropods, though they weren't fully formed (as they would be later with archaeopteryx) and were different. Archaeopteryx was not a theropod and neither were many bird-like "dinosaurs" though some might have been (residual features in some theropods would be possible).

It isn't as much classification as recognizing that Epidendrosaurus was from a line that predated the 230 million years old (originating then) Theropoda Dinosaurs. Even if chronologically later than Archaeopteryx, the evidence is that is was a pre-theropoda line, and the features predated theropods, and one must especially hold this view if theropods are seen to have bird features/creatures too.

And PaulK won't give a date for any specimen.

And Czerkas (1951-2015) was a coauthor, with Feduccia, of the 2014 journal article that you refuse to respond to.

I am going to keep asking for ANY actual response from you or anybody.

(or any links to ANY RESPONSE anywhere on the web period)

There are:

13 pre-THEROPODA features for these specimens.

6 Bird features.

EDIT: Classification has more to do with man's convenience. The recognition of something having major features that clearly predate the origins of something else is the issue. It is origins and not arbitrary classification. Birds predated dinosaurs and many "theropod" birds simply don't come from the theropod line, though there is a possibility that "birds" split off into pre-theropod and theropod lines, while looking fairly birdish in both. The classification of "theropod" might (probably!) not indicate a common SINGLE theropod ancestor.

What is described as Theropod by a classification system NOW USED means that this creature is not Theropod. Regardless, it has features that originated before 230 million years ago.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 1:48 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AdminPhat, posted 01-29-2018 8:57 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 1:23 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 01-29-2018 2:14 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 34 of 62 (827695)
01-29-2018 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by caffeine
01-29-2018 1:48 PM


Since 99% of what I say gets ignored (especially by PaulK):might have to be selective
The more I respond to, the more I get ignored (PaulK, especially, is setting a record for ignoring everything, then claiming that he has covered an issue).

I desperately want to respond to every word from the last 3 posts, but it will just be ignored, so a response to EVERYTHING is unwise.

Will have to be selective.

I want to make a point as concerns molecular evolutionary science verses the fossil record.

(to be ignored I am fairly confident)

caffeine states:

quote:

Your point seems to be that dinosaurs are descended from birds; so in your view, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, birds and crocodilomorphs form a clade, and thus share certain features.

According to everyone else, birds are nested within dinosaurs; but this means that birds, dinosaurs, pterosaurs and crocodilomorphs still form a clade, so they still share certain features.


It works both ways, huh?

caffeine states:

quote:

And yet the fossil record of birds has grown exponentially in recent years; with no hint of anything pre-Jurassic.

Now, of course that doesn't prove that birds were not around earlier - such a thing is always possible. But it's possible for every lineage of organisms - what you have failed to provide is any reason to expect such a thing.


I am trying to get at the rub of this situation.

Visualize this:

Archaeopteryx (now in the last week) dates to 152 million years ago.

Some birds fossils might possibly date to around 160-165 million years (though possibly later).

Feduccia and (Czerkas and Yuan) look at the period of, more or less, 230 million years ago.

Let us just take the fully formed Archaeopteryx's date of 152 million years (which makes birds appear much later than they actually were and thus helps make people like Feduccia look as foolish as possible) and use that as a benchmark to allow the maximum quantitative advantage to the "birds were dinosaurs folks".

So, subtract 152 million years from 230 million years and you have a 78 million year discrepancy for things actually happening (while SO FAR undetected in the fossil record) verses what people like Feduccia (and the late Czerkas) are saying.

A 78 million year discrepancy.

Is this scientifically reasonable?

Look at molecular biology in just the last 100 million years.

quote:

Modern Birds Existed Before Dinosaur Die-Off

Sara Goudarzi
for National Geographic News

February 8, 2008

Modern birds originated a hundred million years ago—long before the demise of dinosaurs, according to new research.

In searching for the first ancestors of modern birds, studies have shown discrepancies between results from fossils and genetic analyses.

Fossil records suggest that modern birds originated 60 million years ago, after the end of the Cretaceous period about 65 million years ago when dinosaurs died off.

But molecular studies suggest that the genetic divergences between many lineages of birds occurred during the Cretaceous period.

Now a new study based on molecular evidence suggests that avian ancestors were flapping their wings some 40 million years earlier than thought.

In the new study researchers applied a new method of research that looks at mutation rates across lineages.

"My goal for this study was to once and for all reconcile divergence estimates from these two sources of information," said lead study author Joseph Brown, a graduate student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

The study appeared recently in the journal BMC Biology.

When dating biological events, molecular geneticists rely on a concept known as the molecular clock.

Over long stretches of time, mutations accrue, or "tick," at a fairly constant rate. By measuring the degree of genetic mutations, scientists can estimate how far back in time a species diverged.

In large groups of distantly related species—such as different families or orders of birds—the molecular clock is much "sloppier" than previously thought, Brown said.

This is because different lineages of birds can accumulate mutations at different rates, so applying a single rate to an entire family tree could lead to suspicious results.

Estimates

The study is the first rigorous investigation into whether bad assumptions about birds' genetic data have led to the large difference—about 50 to 60 million years—between fossil- and genetic-based estimates, researchers say.

The most likely explanation is that these two sources of information deal with different stages of diversification.

Genetic data is used for the period when genes share a common ancestor, which could slightly predate the development of new species. Fossils, however, record only the products of evolution.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...208-bird-origins.html


A 50 to 60 million year discrepancy in just the last 100-125 million years!

Got that?

Here is an attack on Feduccia (generally lacking in actual substance except for a sweep using the fossil cladistics issue)

quote:

Feduccia and like-minded peers have been provided no solid alternate hypotheses about where, when, why and how birds originated—they point to some yet-unknown lineage of creatures that might have lived more than 200 million years ago—but they insist that birds cannot be dinosaurs. Yet Feduccia’s argument in his new book Riddle of the Feathered Dragons is not quite that simple.

....

Perhaps more importantly, however, there is no indication that creatures such as Oviraptor and Velociraptor were birds. Analysis after analysis has found them to be unequivocal, non-avian dinosaurs within the coelurosaur subgroup. Although Feduccia hypothesizes that birds originated from some mysterious Triassic ancestor, and then bird-like dinosaurs evolved from early birds, there is not a shred of evidence that such an evolutionary repeat ever took place. The idea is an attempt to remove uncomfortable facts in the way of a preconceived view.

....

Ultimately, though, many of Feduccia’s objections boil down to a rejection of a methodology known as cladistics. This method of determining relationships among organisms is based on the analysis of shared derived characteristics—specialized features found in two organisms or lineages and their most recent common ancestor. Researchers look for numerous traits, record whether the traits in question are present or absent, and then insert that mass of data into a computer program that produces a hypothesis about the relationships among the various organisms included in the study. The point is not to find direct ancestors and descendants, but to figure out who is most closely related to whom. The method is not perfect—which organisms are included, the choice of traits for comparison and the way those traits are scored all affect the outcome. Still, this process has the benefit of requiring researchers to show their work. Each evolutionary tree resulting from such methods is a hypothesis that will be tested according to new evidence and analyses. If someone disagrees with a particular result, they can sift through the collected data to see if an inappropriate trait was included, an essential organism was left out, or if there was some other problem. Cladistics is useful not because it results in a perfect reflection of nature each time, but because it allows researchers to effectively examine, test and improve ideas about relationships.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/...84209/#lQy1QFxw7FFcAYlB.99


The biggest problem with this cladistics issue is that ignores the fact that some creatures can maintain the ability to reproduce (and thus blend in genes) 34 million years after separating, like some frogs have done.

Early flying birds might have been part of a small number of rare types of creature that were constantly exchanging genes (reproducing) and over long distances too.

There could have been something of a conservative genetic process going on, with less genetic isolation than typically happens with diverging species. Lots of hybrids and long lasting features.

There would be LOTS of evolution going on, and speciation would have been broad (in like a million directions), but there would be lots of opportunity for older genetic types to last for a long time(with some real variation and evolution for sure) after the earlier "nascent stage(s)".

Page 14 of your PDF link said this:

quote:

COMMENT ON THE DEFINITION OF AVES:
Gauthier (1986) applied a crown-group definition
to Aves, which consists of the last common
ancestor of Ratiti, Tinami, and Neognathae
and all of its descendants. This restricted the
name Aves to the least inclusive monophyletic
group containing all living birds. This definition
excluded Archaeopteryx lithographica
and numerous fossil taxa commonly referred
to as ‘‘birds’’ from Aves. These taxa and Aves
proper are subsumed by the more inclusive
stem-based lineage Avialae, which Gauthier
(1986) coined to encompass fossil taxa historically
thought to be birds because of the
presence of feathers and presumed flight
abilities. However, nearly every single character
that at one time was thought to make
something a ‘‘bird’’ is now known to occur
progressively earlier in theropod evolution.
Therefore, ‘‘bird’’ is a colloquial term that
lacks a meaningful taxonomic or scientific
basis as it has no precise phylogenetic meaning.

Birds are being found earlier.

It is recognized that they are difficult to find.

quote:

It was in 1995 that Zhou and colleagues announced the discovery of a fossil from this prehistoric disaster zone that heralded a new age of paleontology. The fossil was a primitive bird the size of a crow that may have been asphyxiated by volcanic fumes as it wheeled above the lakes all those millions of years ago. They named the new species Confuciusornis, after the Chinese philosopher.

Until then, only a handful of prehistoric bird fossils had been unearthed anywhere in the world. That’s partly because birds, then as now, were far less common than fish and invertebrates, and partly because birds more readily evaded mudslides, tar pits, volcanic eruptions and other geological phenomena that captured animals and preserved traces of them for the ages. Scientists have located only ten intact fossilized skeletons of the earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx, which lived at the end of the Jurassic period, about 145 million years ago.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/...57706/#a4vJTchp0CC27RMI.99


And I note that the 13 pre Theropoda features in Scansoriopteryx are still being ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by caffeine, posted 01-29-2018 1:48 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2018 12:31 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 47 by caffeine, posted 02-01-2018 2:22 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 35 of 62 (827696)
01-29-2018 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
01-29-2018 1:23 PM


Re: LamarckNewAge resorts to pretending responses don’t exist
quote:

In the absence of objective information I’m not going to be convinced by Feduccia’s opinions - when he convinces enough other researchers then is the time to take notice of opinions.

But what about this?

put this term into google:

Joseph Brown, a graduate student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor BMC Biology birds molecular clock

quote:

Avian origins: new analysis confirms ancient beginnings
Feb 15, 2008
Contact Nancy Ross-Flanigan

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Did modern birds originate around the time of the dinosaurs' demise, or have they been around far longer?

The question is at the center of a sometimes contentious "rocks versus clocks" debate between paleontologists, whose estimates are based on the fossil record, and scientists who use "molecular clock" methods to study evolutionary history.

A new analysis by researchers at the University of Michigan, the University of Chicago, the Centre for Biodiversity Conservation Mexico and Central America, and Boston University offers the strongest molecular evidence yet for an ancient origin of modern birds, suggesting that they arose more than 100 million years ago, not 60 million years ago, as fossils suggest.

The research was published online Jan. 28 in the journal BMC Biology.

"Scientists typically use two sources of information to date biological events: the fossil record, which contains physical remains of ancient organisms, and molecular genetic data," said graduate student Joseph Brown, who is first author on the paper. In the case of modern birds, however, the two approaches have yielded conflicting results, at times leading to heated debates between paleontologists and molecular biologists. Molecular biologists have asserted that the fossil record must be incomplete, while paleontologists have countered that the genetic data must be suspect.

In fact, both approaches have their weaknesses, Brown said. Fossils tend to underestimate how much time has passed since lineages diverged. That's because fossils preserve only evidence of changes in outward physical appearance, and such changes take some time to accumulate after the actual "speciation event" that marks the divergence.

As for genetic data, the so-called molecular clock isn't quite as precise as once thought. The approach relies on the observation that although mutations occur at random in the genome, when looked at over long stretches of time they occur (or "tick") at a fairly constant rate. Molecular biologists use that rate to reconstruct evolutionary history.

"If we know, for example, that DNA sequences diverge by an average of two percent every million years, and we determine that two species differ genetically by ten percent, we can figure out that they last shared a common ancestor five million years ago," Brown said. The problem is, "different lineages can 'tick' at different rates, so applying a single rate to an entire tree could lead to very suspect results."

Fortunately, new methods exist for compensating for differing rates.

"What my colleagues and I did was apply all of these new methods to the problem of the origin of modern birds, with each method making different assumptions about how mutation rate changes across the tree," Brown said. He hoped the analysis would narrow the gap between fossil and molecular data, but in fact it only reinforced the rock-clock split by underscoring the finding that modern birds arose more than 100 million years ago.

So where does that leave the contentious camps of scientists trying to solve the puzzle of how the world's 10,000 bird species came about?

"Rather than fighting across groups, we now have the joint goal of explaining this rock-clock gap," Brown said. "Resolution of the issue will be fertile ground for future research for a while to come."

Brown's coauthors on the paper are Joshua Rest of the University of Chicago, Jaime Garc

http://ns.umich.edu/...-analysis-confirms-ancient-beginnings


Birds existed more than 40 million years earlier than the fossils.

You said:

quote:

But let us note that you have not one single fossil bird earlier than archaeopteryx. And yet we do have at least one fossil coelurosaur predating it. Which is rather odd if coelurosaurs are descended from birds rather than vice versa.

o.k.

Here is Wikipedia:

quote:

A few fossil traces tentatively associated with the Coelurosauria date back as far as the late Triassic. What has been found between then and the start of the late Jurassic is fragmentary. A typical example is Iliosuchus, known only from two ilia bones in the mid Jurassic. It was a 1.5 m long carnivore from about 165 Ma (million years ago) in Oxfordshire and is tentatively assigned to the Tyrannosauroidea.

So 165 million plus 40 would be at least 205 million.

Then you said.

quote:

That’s a complete invention on your part. Scanisoriopteryx is not a bird and could date after archaeopteryx so it doesn’t do much to move the order back in time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopteryx

Look at this thing that you say isn't a bird.

It has long feathers, NOT FUZZ.

It could very well fly.

And you already said you will ignore the 13 pre-theropoda features. (as well as the 6 bird features which you just said you will ignore and deny)

Perhaps because the 13 features place it absolutely no later (and probably earlier) than the very early Theropoda period (231 million years ago)

quote:

In other words, in your hypothesis, birds are descended from land animals living in the Triassic, and split away from the dinosaur ancestors before the first dinosaurs.

I am saying birds were probably flying BEFORE the Theropoda existed.

Scanisoriopteryx was seen as a bird creature - that descended from a 220-235 million year old ancestral line - by the people who discovered and named it.

The ones you want to ignore (and it wasn't Feduccia!).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 1:23 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 36 of 62 (827697)
01-29-2018 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by caffeine
01-29-2018 2:14 PM


Change title to hope for issues getting addressed.
quote:

Phylogenetic analysis is done with hundreds of characters, not 19. If simple numbers are enough to convince you, then have a look at this 2012 cladistic analysis of coelurosaurian theropods. I recommend this since it's open access; and since they conveniently include the character matrix in the same pdf as the article; even conveniently listing synapomorphies supporting each clade in their analysis.

You can then entertain yourself looking through the 51 shared characters in their matrix that support scansoriopterygids as paravians.


O.K. but I still think that early flying birds (lets say the very earliest were only 250 million years ago, though I suspect it was earlier) would have been quite RADIANT and had a rather wide range of gene broadcasting, and we might have very well seen lots of inter-fertile hybrids constantly re-mixing gene's into one another.

(and the inter-fertile species hybridizing would be a major issue with both EARLY FLYING birds mixing with each other plus the re-mixing in with the tree climbers they descended from )

Birds are radical hybridizers today, over 200 million years after they first existed with all the variation.

quote:

Speciation normally occurs in geographic isolation, but the distributions of birds are complicated and ever changing. Populations once isolated often come into contact, and when they do, the amount, duration, and results of hybridization will vary from instance to instance.

Something on the order of 10 percent of North American birds that are considered specifically distinct hybridize with other species.

https://web.stanford.edu/...s/text/essays/Hybridization.html


10%!

Today!

Back to a period when the mixing would be much greater: 250 million years ago.

Overall, flying birds would have been relatively small in number, compared to other types of critters, but they would have been more uniform in their genetic code.

I'm talking about the early days.

Think of birds as having an early "inflation" period not unlike the universe having its early (rapid)inflation in the first trillionth of a second.

It can explain a lot of the cladistic analysis from 150 million years ago.

Remember the scansoriopteryx enigma (that many would prefer to ignore)?

Here is a (abridged) work from the guys who named it.

quote:

AN ARBOREAL
MANIRAPTORAN FROM
NORTHEAST CHINA
STEPHEN A. CZERKAS and CHONGXI YUAN
The Dinosaur Museum, 754 South 200 West, Blanding, Utah 84511, USA;
Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences,
Baiwanzhuang Road 26,
Beijing 100037, People’s Republic of China.
....
Furthermore, the application of cladistics, or
phylogenetic analysis, has generated a broad
consensus in accepting birds as being derived from
theropod dinosaurs, notably from within the
Maniraptora (Gauthier, 1986).

....

Scansoriopteryx heilmanni is the only known
saurischian, or theropod, which has the third digit
of the manus elongated to nearly twice that of the
second digit. Scansoriopteryx closely resembles
Archaeopteryx, but differs in the following: a
definite contact between an elongate ventral process
of the postorbital and the ascending process of the
jugal; the lower jaw is equipped with a large
fenestra; the tail has a greater development in the
articulation of the zygapophyses. The pelvis is
similar to that of Archaeopteryx in having the same
number of sacrals and general shape of the ilia, but
differs in having a small, unexpanded pubic
peduncle; a significantly short pubis which is not
retroverted; longer ischia; and an acetabulum which
is not entirely perforated. Also unlike
Archaeopteryx, the posterior end of the scapula is
expanded; separate clavicles are present instead of
a furcula; and the foot is more capable of perching
as indicated by its having a longer hallux, and the
reduced lengths of the middle phalanges in digits
III and IV of the pes.

....

In April, 2000, at the Florida Symposium
on Dinosaur/Bird Evolution presented by the
Graves Museum of Archaeology and Natural
History, the fossil of Scansoriopteryx was initially
presented as an “arboreal theropod”. However, this
terminology is an apparent contradiction in terms
as according to definition, “theropods” do not
climb. Also, according to Gauthier (1986),
theropods are united as a group by having the
second digit of the manus as being the longest. Since
the third digit in the manus of Scansoriopteryx is
much longer than the second, it must either
represent a highly derived specialization from that
of typical theropods, or must represent a
pre-theropod status. The combination of the third

digit having a more elongate and robust third
metacarpal; together with phalanges that become
progressively shorter distally, as well as the
numerous primitive characteristics throughout the
body collectively suggest that these are not aberrant
reversals but reflect true plesiomorphic conditions.
Therefore, Scansoriopteryx is more parsimoniously
regarded as being a saurischian of “pre-theropod”
status, instead of as a true theropod.
While Archaeopteryx has remained the most
primitive, basal bird known to Science for the past
140 years, there has been considerable debate and
at times heated controversies as to what the
precursor of Archaeopteryx was like and how the
evolution of avian flight began. Scansoriopteryx
most closely resembles Archaeopteryx in its number
of caudal vertebrae, basic structure of the tail, sacral
vertebrae, shape of the ilia, the length of forelimb,
and general morphology of the skull. The most
significant differences between the two animals are
characters which would ordinarily be considered
as primitive.


It seems that the evidence indicates that pre-theropod dinosaurs (or from their lines) have the features that the first true bird is most closely related to.

But there are so many common features of theropoda (with the certain NOW EVIDENT earlier lines) that it is confusing.

There was some sort of early radiation that spread so many common features.

The enigmatic nature of those that escape rapid burial and fossilization , like flying birds (especially) plus the tree climbers, complicate the picture.

We have molecular biology that can help clarify the picture.

We have the Pterosaurs (very very closely related to the Theropoda, like 5-10 million years separation from the supposed "common ancestor) helping give us hints.

We even have some strong fossil evidence.

But there was some early cosmic inflation type of event that spread the genetic code with the similar features, and ones which stuck around for a while in certain divergent lines.

EDIT to show more bird hybrid details.

quote:

Hybridization, the interbreeding of species, provides favorable conditions for major and rapid evolution to occur. In birds it is widespread. Approximately one in ten species is known to hybridize, and the true global incidence is likely to be much higher

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/256/5054/193


Remember that modern birds have existed for over 100 million years. They have lots of similarities.

It isn't too much of a stretch to see that there could have been tons of striking similarities from 250 million years ago to 150 million years ago. But diversity too.

And residual features and differing rates of evolution.

And common features should be expected in Dinosaurs if Theropoda descended from birds.

quote:

You can then entertain yourself looking through the 51 shared characters in their matrix that support scansoriopterygids as paravians.

"Paravians" did have "scansoriopterygid" type ancestors.

That is why they have such striking similarities.

But the cladistics aren't perfect.

They don't have all the fossils needed because there are those which we don't have (especially earlier ones, and especially not flying birds, though they existed)

Don't forget that the fossil record lacks 999,999/1,000,000 of the horizontal variants/cousins (that is to say living creatures from the SAME year!) and that is a conservative estimate.

Most years lack the bird fossils completely.

Nevermind all the vertical ancestors/descendants from years before and after TOTALLY MISSING.

On tips and nodes of the fossil tree are accurate.

(edit removing supid link for PDF, sorry for 10 month post editing)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 01-29-2018 2:14 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 41 of 62 (827766)
01-31-2018 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
01-30-2018 12:31 AM


Birds, Reptiles, Frogs, and evolution with hybridization.
I said:
quote:

The biggest problem with this cladistics issue is that ignores the fact that some creatures can maintain the ability to reproduce (and thus blend in genes) 34 million years after separating, like some frogs have done.

Early flying birds might have been part of a small number of rare types of creature that were constantly exchanging genes (reproducing) and over long distances too.


PaulK said:

quote:

Note that this is not really a flaw in the article. It’s not even detailed enough to call it an implausible hypothesis. I think you will find that the frogs are pretty similar in appearance and that they represent a rare case. To propose something on a much greater scale, involving much more different creatures with no real evidence is little more than an excuse.

I put this search term into www.google.com:

birds hybridization rapid evolution fast

I got a hit to a 2004 journal with this short abstract with this text, which indicates birds and amphibians actually (seem to?) have about the same pre-zygotic post-zygotic isolation.

quote:

Evolution 58(8):1865-1870. 2004
https://doi.org/10.1554/04-190

RATES OF EVOLUTION OF HYBRID INVIABILITY IN BIRDS AND MAMMALS

No Access

Benjamin M. Fitzpatrick
M. Nachman

The Society for the Study of Evolution
Received: March 22, 2004; Accepted: April 16, 2004

[+] Author & Article Info

Abstract

Almost 30 years ago, A. C. Wilson and colleagues presented results indicating that hybrid inviability between species evolves 10 times faster in mammals than in birds and frogs. Here I revisit this question for birds and mammals using modern molecular data (mitochondrial cytochrome b DNA) and a more phylogenetically appropriate statistical approach. My analyses confirm that diverging mammals lose the ability to form viable hybrids faster than birds. To explain the difference in rates of evolutionary loss of hybridization potential, Wilson and coworkers proposed that mammals have higher rates of regulatory evolution, causing higher probabilities of developmental incompatibilities between mammal species. I briefly discuss this and other potential explanations.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1554/04-190


Can't be read but there is something cool.

The "Literature Cited" has every citation in the journal article with a "google scholar" link. Very relevant issues are obvious, just from the citation text, and something we should all look at I suppose.

The http://science.sciencemag.org/content/256/5054/193 like said "Hybridization presents challenges to the reconstruction of phylogenies, formulation of biological species concepts and definitions".

Now birds are said to be part of "dinosaurs", which (dinousaurs) are said to have begun to exist 230 million years ago, and which split off from a common ancestor with the Crocodile-type creatures 240 million years ago. Pterosaurs are said to have branch off from this 240 million year old common ancestor as well.

One 240 million year old ancestor split just 10 million years before there was a distinctive crocodilian line of creatures and a distinctive dinosaur line BUT FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR.

(I feel that birds would have already existed by this time and in fact might have been a type of creatures that already existed for AT LEAST several tens of millions of years already.)

But, it is a fact that birds evolved much faster than Crocodiles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...-evolution-unusually-slow.html

I put "birds evolved faster than crocodiles" into google, but other terms would find broader comparisons (than just birds verses crocodiles) I suppose.

It would make a lot of sense to see birds as creatures that evolved at a quicker pace than dinosaurs, so that they might look more recent, and dinosaurs might look older.

But the original birds would be older.

This site below gets it.

quote:

Pterosaurs to Birds: Scansoriopteryx
pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2014/07/scansoriopteryx.html

Jul 25, 2014 - The re-examination of a sparrow-sized fossil [Scansoriopteryx] from China challenges the commonly held belief that birds evolved from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs that gained the ability to fly. The birdlike fossil is actually not a dinosaur, as previously thought, but much rather the remains of a tiny ...


It is good to get the important things right.

Scansoriopteryx is important.

And it is something that can't be ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2018 12:31 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2018 12:16 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022